This
matter is before the court on defendant Terresa Atwater's
motion for summary judgment limited to failure to exhaust
administrative remedies and motion to dismiss (DE 35).
Plaintiff did not respond to the motion. In this posture, the
issues raised are ripe for adjudication.

STATEMENT
OF THE CASE

On
January 5, 2017, plaintiff, a state inmate, filed this civil
rights action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that defendant Hunt subjected him to sexual
harassment, defendants Britt and Atwater failed to adequately
respond to his mental health issues, and the remaining
defendants failed to investigate his grievances about the
sexual harassment. On June 22, 2017, the court conducted a
frivolity review of plaintiff's action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915 and allowed plaintiff's action to
proceed.

On
January 22, 2018, defendant Atwater filed a motion for
summary judgment arguing that plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1997e(a). Alternatively, defendant Atwater seeks dismissal of
plaintiff's action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that plaintiff's
allegations against defendant Atwater fail to state a claim
for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. In
support, defendant Atwater submitted a Statement of Material
Facts and an Appendix, which included affidavits from Finesse
G. Couch and Jodi Harrison, and copies of twenty-six
grievances plaintiff submitted to the Inmate Grievance
Resolution Board between January 7, 2014, and January 5,
2017. Also on January 22, 2018, the court sent plaintiff
notice of the instant motion pursuant Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). The notice
provided plaintiff's deadline for responding to the
motion, and stated:

you cannot rely only on the complaint or other pleadings to
defeat a motion for summary judgment, if the defendants
properly meet their burden under [Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56]. Instead, you must respond to the motion with
affidavits (written statements signed before a notary public
and under oath), declarations (written statements bearing a
certificate that the statement is signed under penalty of
perjury), deposition transcripts, discovery responses, sworn
statements . . . or other evidence.

(Roseboro
Letter (Jan. 22, 2018) (DE 41) at 1). Despite this notice,
plaintiff did not respond to the instant motion.

On
January 29, 2018, the court entered an initial order
regarding case scheduling, and provided the parties
twenty-one days to file objections to the proposed schedule
contained therein. Defendant Atwater timely filed an
objection and requested that the court stay discovery while
the instant motion for summary judgment/motion to dismiss was
pending. On February 28, 2018, the court stayed discovery and
other case scheduling deadlines as to defendant Atwater
pending resolution of the instant motion, and entered a case
management order governing discovery and dispositive motion
practice applicable to the remaining defendants.

STATEMENT
OF THE FACTS

In the
light most favorable to plaintiff, the facts relevant to the
instant motion are as follows. Plaintiff alleges that he was
placed in administrative segregation for 70 days beginning on
January 7, 2014. (Compl. (DE 1) at 6). Plaintiff alleges that
defendant Hunt continuously sexually harassed him while he
was in administrative segregation. (See i d .) At
one of his mental health appointments, plaintiff reported the
sexual harassment to defendants Atwater and Britt.
(Id.) In response, defendant Atwater allegedly
accused plaintiff of lying about the harassment so that he
could receive a transfer. (Id.) Plaintiff then
reported the sexual harassment to defendant Bullard, who
attempted to “coerce” plaintiff into not filing a
formal grievance because plaintiff would be subject to
disciplinary charges if prison officials determined the
allegations were false. (Id. at 6-7). Plaintiff then
submitted “confidential” grievances to defendants
Huggins and Solomon, who both failed to “process”
the grievances through the prison's administrative remedy
procedure. (Id. at 7).

As
noted, plaintiff submitted at least twenty-six grievances to
prison officials between January 7, 2014, and January 5,
2017, and pursued all of them to the final “step
3” procedure - presentation to the Inmate Grievance
Resolution Board.[2] (See App. I (DE 39) & App. II
(DE 40)). None of the grievances plaintiff submitted to the
Inmate Grievance Resolution Board during that time frame
alleged defendant Atwater (or any other prison official) was
deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's medical needs by
failing to adequately treat mental health issues caused by
the alleged sexual harassment. (See id.)

DISCUSSION

A.
Motion for ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.